What is a Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence?

There have been court rulings specifying when a motion "to preclude" is at issue. e.g.,

  • Introducing any Evidence or Argument Regarding Plaintiff Purportedly being Required to Provide Defendant a Right to Cure his Unapproved Subletting of a Portion of the Property
  • Introducing Evidence or Argument Regarding the Renovations, Condition, and Scope of Construction at the Building
  • Testifying at Trial Regarding Matters which they Refused to Testify about at Deposition based on Claims of Privilege and Privacy
  • Introducing Witnesses, Documents, or Contentions not Disclosed During Discovery
  • reference to tax implications
  • evidence that defendant not issued a citation
  • comments and innuendos that plaintiff's counsel referred her to her treating physicians
  • evidence of unrelated medical issues
  • evidence of plaintiff's prior loss of employment claim or change in employment
  • reference to collateral sources and health insurance
  • evidence in medical record of plaintiff's inquiry about having an attorney
  • evidence of plaintiff's smoking
  • use of textbooks and learned treatises on direct examinations
  • use of textbooks and learned treatises on direct examinations
  • expert testimony from non-designated expert witnesses
  • evidence of defective work and cost of repair, until or unless defendant has produced an invoice to support it
  • any reference to Civil Code section 3333.2 or code of civil procedure section 667.7
  • evidence of past medical expenses not actually paid by any source
  • mention of prior settlement monies received by plaintiff

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine – Preclude Evidence

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine – Preclude Evidence

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

This rule would not preclude a court from enjoining unconstitutional or void acts, but to support a request for such relief the plaintiff must make a significant showing of irreparable injury.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 1471.) In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to make a showing—let alone a significant showing—that there is an imminent threat of irreparable harm if the requested preliminary injunction does not issue.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

On June 1, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motions for protective order, seeking protective orders to preclude Plaintiff from taking the depositions of Hyundai Motor attorneys Zhanna Bulkina (“Bulkina”), Alma Murray (“Murray”), and Thomas N. Vanderford, Jr. (“Vanderford”), each of whom provided declarations in support of the motion to disqualify. On June 2, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to compel those same depositions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

NORMAN COLAVINCENZO V. SHELTERBOX USA, INC., ET AL.

Certainly, defendants have not provided this Court with any authority that would preclude liability as a matter of law, under the facts alleged in the FAC. Consequently, even if it could properly be determined on demurrer that Proctor had no knowledge of the falsity of his representation of employment on 9/3/19, defendants’ subsequent conduct and comments are far from irrelevant.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

DON LEE FARMS VS SAVAGE RIVER INC

A court “has the inherent power to preclude evidence to cure abuses or overreaching involving confidential information.” (Id. at 286-287.) A court can also impose monetary sanctions against a party “engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 300.) Issue No.1: Retroactive Nature of the Protective Order to the Site Assessment Report Here, it is undisputed that DLF provided the Bloomberg News with the Site Assessment Report.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

MADELINE MOORE VS DENNIS P RILEY ET AL

DISCUSSION: Motion for Summary Adjudication Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests judicial notice of (1) the court docket in the underlying litigation; (2) the order entered July 26, 2016 in the underlying litigation relieving Riley as counsel for Plaintiff; (3) Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 1 in the underlying litigation; (4) Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 2 in the underlying litigation; (5) Plaintiff’s complaint in this action; (6) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint; (7) a minute

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

JOEL PASCHAL VS KOLLIDER INDUSTRIES LLC ET AL

Plaintiff argues that “while Lugo’s status as an agent of Kollider is disputed, Reynolds does not preclude liability with respect to Labor Code sections 558 (overtime), 1197 (minimum wages), or 2699 (PAGA), which expressly provide that individuals, officers, agents, and employers are subject to civil penalties.” (Id. at p. 5:16-19, citing Pedrazzani, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 815.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SCHON VS. VALORY

. & Trust Co. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 365, 376 ["The test on demurrer is not whether the allegations are likely to be proven but whether the allegations preclude liability, and the allegations must be construed liberally in favor of the pleader," citing Skopp v. Weaver (1976) 16 Cal.3d 432].) The Court "must also consider judicially noticed matters" in ruling on a demurrer. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081; Rakestraw, 81 Cal.App.4th at 42.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JOEL PASCHAL VS KOLLIDER INDUSTRIES LLC ET AL

Plaintiff argues that “while Lugo’s status as an agent of Kollider is disputed, Reynolds does not preclude liability with respect to Labor Code sections 558 (overtime), 1197 (minimum wages), or 2699 (PAGA), which expressly provide that individuals, officers, agents, and employers are subject to civil penalties.” (Id. at p. 5:16-19, citing Pedrazzani, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 815.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BLACK SANDS ASSOCIATES, LLC VS R.E. GARDINIER JR. DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

“However, the failure to expressly state a ground for recovery does not in every case preclude recovery on the omitted ground[.]” (366-386 Geary St., L.P. v. Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1186, 1200.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MITCHELL V LENTS HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST LENTS FORMER COUNSEL BY BLAKE WALTER DUNLAP, BLAKE WALTER DUNLAPINDEPENDENTEXECUTOR

Coppola to meet and confer on the parties’ motions in limine and for preparing joint pre-trial documents as required under rule 3401(4), including a joint statement, stipulations of agreed upon facts or legal issues, joint statement of claims and defenses, joint statement of the case, a joint witness and exhibit lists, jury instruction and verdict forms, etc. As a result, Mr. Williams contends he had to take on the responsibilities under rule 3401(4) on his own. On or about December 05, 2019, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JOZEFOWICZ V. SUNNY HILLS RESTORATION, ET AL.

For instance, Plaintiff objects to fees for time on a motion for 128.7 sanctions that was never filed, excessive time for motions in limine, excessive time for reviewing files, time spent on a meritless motion to disqualify, and some other miscellaneous items. The court finds that a downward adjustment is appropriate for inefficiency, excessive, and unnecessary billing entries, including time spent on the motion for sanctions and motion to disqualify.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ARIA LAW GROUP, PLC V. SAEID MOHEBBI

And, the fact that the insurer still owes some fiduciary duties to the insured notwithstanding the coverage dispute does not preclude the insured from communicating confidentially with Cumis counsel or entitle the insurance carrier to access such confidential communications. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

EDUARDO MARTINEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Specifically, Defendant compares the fees Plaintiff requested for his motions in limine with the fees for filing and serving courtesy copies for his oppositions to Defendant’s motions in limine and contends Plaintiff’s own motions involved unreasonable costs. However, Defendant does not address how Plaintiff is double-charging for the same filings or specifically which costs Defendant objects to.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

LUIS SALAZAR VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

The Court finds that, while Plaintiff’s counsel should have provided a brief description of what the communication was about, the vagueness does not preclude the Court from finding that the time billed and fees incurred for these communications were reasonable when the subject of the communication can be inferred from the surrounding entries. Defendants also object to the entries that show that an associate attorney did the work.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MELISSA MARTINEZ VS L A HARDWOOD FLOORING INC ET AL

“[T]he Legislature amended the FEHA cost provision to preclude an award of fees and costs to a prevailing defendant unless the court finds the plaintiff brought or maintained a frivolous FEHA action.” (Scott v. City of San Diego (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 228, 234.) “Section 998 alters the allocation of costs awarded in civil litigation with a view toward encouraging pretrial settlement.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TIMED OUT LLC VS PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT LLC

They further coordinated on motions in limine and oppositions to Timed Out’s efforts to introduce other potential damages witnesses. (Vallejo Decl. ¶ 5.) They further worked with jury consultant Paulette Taylor for voir dire during trial on January 15–17, 2020. (Vallejo Decl. ¶ 5.) On January 21, 2020, Timed Out announced that it had reached a partial settlement with Prisma.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LENHERT VS LAKRITZ

The court sustained Defendant's demurrer to the second cause of action for partition with leave to amend so that Plaintiffs can plead additional facts demonstrating that California Code of Civil Procedure § 872.210(b) does not preclude a partition action. The court has not yet found that Plaintiffs cannot state a partition claim. The motion to strike Item No. 4 in the prayer for relief is granted without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM WADDLE VS VINCENT TORRES, ET AL.

The court does not find any of the interrogatories and requests for admission to be vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to preclude a complete response by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also raises a new objection in its motion by arguing that the Form Interrogatories at issue seek irrelevant information. The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EDITH ANNE PETRUCCI ET AL VS 7 ELEVEN DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

However, that limitation was never intended to preclude any party from advancing additional theories of relevance for discovery into additional areas. Here, Defendants have articulated the relevance of medical records concerning Plaintiff Edith’s history of and treatment for Gastroesphageal Reflux Disease as a known risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LENHERT VS LAKRITZ

The court sustained Defendant's demurrer to the second cause of action for partition with leave to amend so that Plaintiffs can plead additional facts demonstrating that California Code of Civil Procedure § 872.210(b) does not preclude a partition action. The court has not yet found that Plaintiffs cannot state a partition claim. The motion to strike Item No. 4 in the prayer for relief is granted without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MCLAUGHLIN V. CUSHFIELD MAINTENANCE WEST CORP.

App. 4th 934, 940 and 947-48 we learn: “[T]he guarantee of reinstatement to the same or comparable position does not preclude an employer from terminating the employee's employment as part of a work force reduction. . .[a]n employee has no greater right to reinstatement or to other benefits and conditions of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed during the CFRA leave period.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

ERIC DEVEZIN VS CHUCK DORFMAN, ET AL.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT A MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO EXCLUDE IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS, TESTIMONY, AND EVIDENCE OF PSCYHOLOGICAL INJURIES AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AT TRIAL Date of Hearing: September 24, 2020 Trial Date: June 1, 2021 Department: W Case No.: 19VECV00001 Moving Party: Defendant Ezra Kamer Responding Party: Plaintiff Eric Devezin Notice: Proper BACKGROUND Plaintiff Eric Devezin (“Plaintiff”) alleges he was a tenant of a rent-controlled property located

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HUSSEIN V. RAZIN

In conclusion, there are triable issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. CCP§437c(p)(2). Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice. Motion to Compel Production Defendants Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, and Quality Systems, Inc. seek an order compelling Plaintiff Ahmed H. Hussein to produce documents in response to Defendants’ 4th set of Requests for Production of Documents. The Motion is DENIED on procedural grounds and substantive grounds.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

GUZIK TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES V. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

(Ibid.) 5 Defendant points to section 1.1 of the Manufacturing Agreement, which provides: 6 “[N]othing in this Agreement will be construed or interpreted to preclude either party from 7 independently developing, purchasing, licensing, or marketing any product which performs the 8 same or similar function as the Products.” (Hoskins Decl., Ex. E, ¶ 1.1.) Defendant cites to 9 Exxon Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 295     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.